Controlling in Long-Term Projects: Securing Margin

Engineering firms rarely work on projects that are completed after four weeks. Fire protection concepts, building services engineering, expert assessments, or infrastructure projects run for months, frequently years. That is structurally intended. The problem lies elsewhere: the longer a project runs, the later it becomes apparent when the budget no longer adds up.

Anyone checking the budget of a long-term project only at the quarterly close only sees after three months what went wrong six weeks ago. By that point the room to maneuver is often already narrow: the effort has been consumed, the client has not yet been informed, and the margin tips silently.

This is frequently the normal state of affairs in engineering firms that organize their project management through Excel, distributed timesheets, or year-end evaluations.

What happens at project level when controlling is absent:

• Effort is recorded too late or cumulatively backdated
• Milestones are on schedule but resource consumption is above plan
• Scope changes continuously alter scope without the recorded budget being updated
• Follow-on calculations for the next project are based on incomplete actual data
• Invoicing stalls because proof of service status is missing

Why Multi-Year Projects Have Special Controlling Requirements

A project with a twelve-month duration is structurally different from a short assignment. That applies to the management logic just as much as to the risk profiles.

Milestone-Based Structures Need More Than Deadline Tracking

In specialist planning, the project sequence is typically structured in service phases according to the HOAI. Each phase has its own effort budget, its own participants, and its own documentation obligations. When project managers only have deadline progress in view but not resource consumption per phase, the foundation for commercial management is absent.

Example: Service phase 5 is on schedule in terms of deadlines but has already consumed 80 percent of the planned effort even though 60 percent of the content is still outstanding. This signal is only visible in Excel-based systems when someone actively looks for it and has consolidated all timesheets.

Budget Burn Rate as the Central Management Instrument

The budget burn rate shows how quickly the available project budget is being consumed in relation to actual service progress. For long-term projects this figure is decisive: it makes visible whether a project is on track or whether effort is flowing faster than planned.

Engineering firms that do not systematically record this metric rely on estimates. Estimates are not management.

Change Management as an Underestimated Cost Driver

Long-term projects are rarely handled as planned. Additional services, revised standards, new requirements from clients or authorities continuously alter the scope. Anyone who does not immediately reflect these changes in effort planning loses the connection between planned and actual project budget.

According to the Association of Consulting Engineers (VBI), inadequate fee calculation and missing supplementary claims documentation are among the most common commercial risks in technical planning.

Where Controlling Fails in Practice

The real problem is not a knowledge problem. Project managers in engineering firms know that controlling is important. The problem is a system error: the tools being used do not produce real-time transparency.

Excel as a Project Controlling Tool

Excel can hold data. But it cannot automatically, consistently, and in real time consolidate from multiple sources. In engineering firms with ten, twenty, or fifty parallel projects this creates a structural problem: each project has its own file, its own logic, its own time tables. Anyone wanting the overall picture must first consolidate all files.

That costs time. And it happens too late.

A planning office with 30 employees and 15 active projects spends, by their own account, several hours per week manually consolidating project data before a management decision can be made. By that point the data is already outdated again.

Time Recording Without Project Structure

When employees record project hours without a clear assignment to project phases, service positions, or budget positions, data arises that is unusable for controlling. Hours accumulate to an overall total, but this total can neither be compared with the planned value nor broken down by phase.

The consequence: project managers know how many hours have been booked in total. But they do not know whether that is good or bad because the target-actual comparison at phase level is missing.

Invoicing as a Lagging Indicator

In many firms, invoicing is the first time it becomes apparent how the project ran commercially. That is too late. Invoicing is not a management instrument but a result. Anyone who only notices when raising the outgoing invoice that the project allowance has been exceeded has no further opportunity to take countermeasures.

Systematic Project Controlling for Long-Term Projects: What Is Structurally Necessary

To manage multi-year projects commercially, engineering firms need a software-based logic that connects planning, recording, and evaluation on a single data foundation.

Project Structure as the Foundation for Reliable Data

Every project needs a stored structure: phases, service positions, budgets, and responsibilities. Only when employees book their times against this structure does data arise that can be used for controlling.

In ZEP Compact and ZEP Professional, this structure is stored directly in the project master record. Hours are not merely recorded but assigned at phase level. This enables target-actual comparisons in real time without manual consolidation.

Real-Time Transparency Instead of Quarterly Evaluation

The decisive difference between functioning and non-functioning controlling is the timing of information. Anyone who sees a deviation when 40 percent of the project still lies ahead can take countermeasures: limit scope, document additional services, prepare supplementary claims negotiation.

Anyone who only sees a deviation at the quarterly close no longer has this room to maneuver.

ZEP shows current budget consumption, remaining capacity, and service progress at phase level on an ongoing basis. The project controlling dashboard transforms a retrospective evaluation into an active management instrument.

Resource Planning for Long-Runners

For projects with a multi-year duration, the resource question is not only a capacity question. It is also a strategic question: which specialists are tied up in which project phases? When do bottlenecks arise? Which new mandates can be accepted?

Without structured resource planning that extends beyond project boundaries, a firm cannot reliably answer these questions. Overbookings arise because no one has the overall load in view. Underbookings arise because capacities are not made visible.

The resource planning in ZEP enables a forward look across all active projects. Bottlenecks become visible before they become problems.

Effort History as a Calculation Foundation

A strategically underestimated value of project controlling: the actual data from completed projects is the most reliable foundation for future calculations. Anyone who knows that service phase 5 on comparable projects generates on average 15 percent more effort than planned will calculate the next project more realistically.

Firms that maintain no structured effort history calculate on the basis of experience values and gut feeling. That is not an error in an individual case. Across many projects it is a systematic risk problem.

ZEP Professional stores project data in a structured and evaluable manner. The effort history is directly available for the next proposal calculation.

Practical Example: How Controlling Transparency Saves a Project

A building services engineering planning firm with 45 employees handles a major project over 28 months. Three trades, four service phases, changing sub-planners. Until an integrated project controlling system was introduced, hours were consolidated in Excel weekly. Evaluations took place monthly when the commercial manager found the time.

In the eleventh project month the new system shows: the effort for service phase 4 is already at 92 percent of budget even though only 70 percent of the content has been completed. Without real-time controlling this finding would only have become visible at the month-end close at the earliest.

With the current information the firm can act immediately: change services are documented, a supplementary claims meeting with the client is prepared. The additional costs are substantiated rather than absorbed.

This scenario is not an exceptional case. It is the normal state of affairs once projects run long enough to get lost in the details.

{{blog-cta}}

When the ERP Is Not Enough: Why Engineering Firms Need a Project Solution

Many mid-sized engineering firms already have an ERP system in use, often a commercially oriented system for accounting, invoicing, and HR management. The problem: ERP systems are not built for the operative management of project work. Their time recording modules are too coarse, their project structure too flat, and a phase-accurate target-actual evaluation is generally absent entirely.

In practice this leads to a hybrid landscape: the ERP handles accounting and invoicing, while project controlling and resource planning continue in Excel. This break creates double maintenance effort and structural inconsistency in the data.

ZEP Complements Existing ERP Systems

ZEP is designed to complement existing ERP systems. The interfaces of ZEP Compact and ZEP Professional cover accounting and ERP systems, so that time data, project proof, and billing bases can be transferred directly into the existing commercial infrastructure.

For engineering firms this means: project-related processes are managed in ZEP, the commercial team retains its familiar tool. No big-bang switch, no system break at launch. This complementary logic also reduces the internal change effort: project team members work in ZEP, finance stays in the familiar system.

Invoicing on the Basis of Reliable Project Data

A structural advantage of the integrated platform logic shows itself in invoicing. In engineering firms that keep project time and billing in separate systems, a manual review task arises before every outgoing invoice: which hours are billable? Which proofs are on hand? Does the total match the fee framework?

When time data is recorded directly in the project structure and linked to service positions, this manual consolidation is eliminated. The billing basis is retrievable at any time. This accelerates the invoicing cycle and reduces errors when billing multi-phase projects.

In ZEP Professional this process from project time to outgoing invoice is mapped as a project-to-bill process: one data foundation, no handovers between systems.

From Recording to Commercial Management: The Platform Logic

Engineering firms wanting to digitalize their processes step by step often face the choice between many individual solutions. Time tracking here, project planning there, billing somewhere else. Every tool break is a data loss.

ZEP maps the entire path on a single data foundation:

ZEP Clock covers working time recording, travel expenses, and absences. Data is recorded DACH-compliantly and immediately available for evaluations.

ZEP Compact adds project time tracking, task management, resource planning, and project controlling. Project managers see target-actual comparisons at phase level without having to consolidate data manually.

ZEP Professional closes the commercial loop: proposal management, invoicing, liquidity management, and complete forecasting. From the first time entry to the outgoing invoice without media breaks.

For engineering firms with multi-year projects this land-and-expand path is particularly relevant: the entry point is low-threshold and the expansion follows the growth of the firm.

Conclusion: Long-Term Projects Need Controlling That Keeps Pace

Multi-year projects do not forgive structural controlling gaps. The longer a project runs, the greater the commercial damage of a deviation that is recognized too late.

Three measures engineering firms can implement immediately:

1. Store project structure: phases, budgets, and service positions must be mapped in the system before a project starts. Only then do time entries enable reliable target-actual comparisons.
2. Check burn rate weekly: not quarterly, not monthly. Deviations in long-runners are recognizable early when the eye regularly falls on budget consumption and service progress.
3. Build an effort history: systematically evaluate completed project data and use it for the next calculation. Every completed project is a data point for more precise proposals.

Anyone who implements these three points with an integrated platform rather than island solutions reduces manual effort and gains the transparency needed for commercial management.